Savage on Autism

[Billdave2]

Usualy, but I don't know SC laws, there is a further screening as well. This may have been a preliminary refferal, there is usualy a subsequent and further assesment prior to admission to special education. So it is likely (at least in Illinois) that they would have been bounced back by the MSW and the school psychologist, especialy since there is a standard of criteria for special ed (the big one being that your academic expression does not match your tested ability or that you have an IQ below 70).

This is the case. My son would have been admitted to the special needs school and evaluated. He almost certainly would be sent back, but his "official records" would show that he had been in special needs school and it could have created problems down the road getting admitted to advanced classes in regular school (his eventual evaluation showed he has a fairly high IQ). His teachers though they were doing a good thing by evaluating him so high. There thinking was that he needed to be in special needs and if they honestly evaluated him he might be rejected. Oh well, you not is paved with good intentions.

 

[GreyICE]

This is the case. My son would have been admitted to the special needs school and evaluated. He almost certainly would be sent back, but his "official records" would show that he had been in special needs school and it could have created problems down the road getting admitted to advanced classes in regular school (his eventual evaluation showed he has a fairly high IQ). His teachers though they were doing a good thing by evaluating him so high. There thinking was that he needed to be in special needs and if they honestly evaluated him he might be rejected. Oh well, you not is paved with good intentions.

With all due respect, you need to make this an issue. You cannot allow amateurs to do a professional's work for them. It is a professional's job to evaluate these things, because they were trained.

An amateur's job is to report the facts. That is IT. They made a diagnosis they had no right to make, and it placed the school in legal liability. The school is legally liable for any ill-effects that happened to your son, because the teachers lied, because the teachers' made a judgment they had no legal, ethical, or moral right to make.

This needs to be made clear to the proper authorities, and it needs to be made clear that the only reason they are not being held liable in a court of law is that you are a nice person. But you do not want this to happen to another child.

That is your responsibility to the other children who might be in a similar situation. Because maybe they don't have parents as caring as your child does do, and maybe they won't be sent to doctors as good as your child's was. We plug the cracks where we can.

 

[Billdave2]

With all due respect, you need to make this an issue. You cannot allow amateurs to do a professional's work for them. It is a professional's job to evaluate these things, because they were trained.

An amateur's job is to report the facts. That is IT. They made a diagnosis they had no right to make, and it placed the school in legal liability. The school is legally liable for any ill-effects that happened to your son, because the teachers lied, because the teachers' made a judgment they had no legal, ethical, or moral right to make.

This needs to be made clear to the proper authorities, and it needs to be made clear that the only reason they are not being held liable in a court of law is that you are a nice person. But you do not want this to happen to another child.

That is your responsibility to the other children who might be in a similar situation. Because maybe they don't have parents as caring as your child does do, and maybe they won't be sent to doctors as good as your child's was. We plug the cracks where we can.

The thing is the teachers at the daycare (and remember these are not "real" teachers) were just reporting the facts as they understood them. They have been told signs to look for and if a child is having problems to tell the parents what they have observed and what the options are. They fill out a set of evalation forms based on what they observe. These oberservations are supussoed to be used in evaluating the child, but are only one part. The problem is really that the stat has it set up where the formal evaluation comes after the child is placed in special needs, and the catch is the way the state determines whether to place the child in special needs off the opinions of untrained or semi-trained (which is actually worse) observations. The really scary thing is that if you want a private evaluation the waiting list is like 6 months and you need a reference from your pediatrician. Once again because some of the genetics clinics my wife works at are done in conjuncture with the Developmental Peds office, she was able to get us "worked in". You can get in faster if the State is paying, but that means going through special needs school or DSS. In order to qualify you need the evaluations from the daycare or something similar. If the state thinks your child is not severe enough to qualify, then you have to wait. It is almost a catch 22. You have to have a severe problem to get seen faster, but the less severe kids have a better chance of being helped if they are diagnosed faster.

 

[GreyICE]

The thing is the teachers at the daycare (and remember these are not "real" teachers) were just reporting the facts as they understood them. They have been told signs to look for and if a child is having problems to tell the parents what they have observed and what the options are. They fill out a set of evalation forms based on what they observe. These oberservations are supussoed to be used in evaluating the child, but are only one part. The problem is really that the stat has it set up where the formal evaluation comes after the child is placed in special needs, and the catch is the way the state determines whether to place the child in special needs off the opinions of untrained or semi-trained (which is actually worse) observations. The really scary thing is that if you want a private evaluation the waiting list is like 6 months and you need a reference from your pediatrician. Once again because some of the genetics clinics my wife works at are done in conjuncture with the Developmental Peds office, she was able to get us "worked in". You can get in faster if the State is paying, but that means going through special needs school or DSS. In order to qualify you need the evaluations from the daycare or something similar. If the state thinks your child is not severe enough to qualify, then you have to wait. It is almost a catch 22. You have to have a severe problem to get seen faster, but the less severe kids have a better chance of being helped if they are diagnosed faster.

The instant they figure out that they've just made themselves legally liable for any negative effects of a misdiagnosis, they're going to change that.

Seriously, I am not a fan of 'sue the pants off them.' But lawyers exist for a reason. The state is making a judgment on a child's future that it has no right to make, using non-professional opinions. Speak to the head of your school district, if they punt, speak to the head of your state's department of education. That is NOT a Federal policy, that is a local policy.

I mean, lets run down the checklist. The state is making a judgment it has no professional ability to make. Check. There is a potential for a large negative impact to the child. Check. The state does not provide formal observations prior to the decision. Check. It is a duty that can only be performed by a trained professional. Check. It unfairly discriminates against impoverished families, who cannot afford the private checkup to avoid their broken system. Check.

So you have an unfair, discriminatory system that has a potential to negatively impact children being run by half-trained amateurs.

Really, I can't imagine that this is a good position to be sitting in.

 

[Boo]

Pre-schools and day care centers are seen as the front line in recognizing and referring children with Autism. All states have programs designed so that all children are screened for developmental delays before entering kindergarten. Ideally they hold training sessions to help the staff be aware of what behaviors to look for in children who are not meeting milestones or exhibiting behaviors consistent with Autism. These training sessions are usually held once a year and are usually no longer then 4 hours. The purpose is not have them diagnose Autism or other conditions but to help identify children at risk. These children and their families are supposed to be made aware of the staff's concerns and observations and then refer them to the appropriate medical or community agency for proper testing.

The check sheet is something that the staff is told to fill out and have the parents take with them at an evaluation. This allows for the diagnostic team to have observational reports from independent sources outside of the home. It is in no way intended or should be thought of as a diagnosing of a child. If the staff at a center told you they had diagnosed your child, were recommending intervention services and therapy to start based on what they had observed then they have seriously overstepped their bounds. Instead they should have handed you the referral form, a list of pediatricians and agencies that do formal testing, noted their concerns based on their observations and made a recommendation for evaluation.






Boo

 

[Dancing David]

This is the case. My son would have been admitted to the special needs school and evaluated. He almost certainly would be sent back, but his "official records" would show that he had been in special needs school and it could have created problems down the road getting admitted to advanced classes in regular school (his eventual evaluation showed he has a fairly high IQ). His teachers though they were doing a good thing by evaluating him so high. There thinking was that he needed to be in special needs and if they honestly evaluated him he might be rejected. Oh well, you not is paved with good intentions.

Stupid @%@%@!

I hate that! Mainstreaming is the way to go.

(Due to dyslexia of both flavors I did not learn to read until third grade. Then when we moved I started fifth grade in the 'slow' class and had to show that I could be in the not so slow class. Sixth grade I tracked into the almost smart class.)


I have real issues with tracking and trying to get children services that they don't need.

 

[Dancing David]

Just so people know, I do believe in special education, I just also believe in mainstreaming. The economic and social barriers to education are much higher than the usual eccentric child will face. So why single out the eccentric child (like my brother: very eccentric and very successful) when there are others who are not being helped at all.

(In Illinois and many states there are NO SERVICES for the 'slow learners' who have an IQ>70 and less than average. these are about 15% of the population, they will not succede in school usualy without assistance. they all comprise about 75% of the 'middle schoolers who can't read' and all the things people complain about in schools.)

 

[technoextreme]

It is a duty that can only be performed by a trained professional.

Well yeah but that's making the assumption that they don't have a trained professional.

Just so people know, I do believe in special education, I just also believe in mainstreaming. The economic and social barriers to education are much higher than the usual eccentric child will face. So why single out the eccentric child (like my brother: very eccentric and very successful) when there are others who are not being helped at all.

Let's be honest with ourselves here. You needed that help despite your denials.

 

[GreyICE]

Well yeah but that's making the assumption that they don't have a trained professional.

If they rely on the teachers' judgment to put them in special education before they get professional evaluation, as Billdave said they did it's not much of an assumption. It's more reading comprehension.

 

[technoextreme]

If they rely on the teachers' judgment to put them in special education before they get professional evaluation, as Billdave said they did it's not much of an assumption. It's more reading comprehension.

You didn't comprehend what I wrote. Im saying that the school quite possibly had professionals on hand who know what they are doing.

 

[GreyICE]

You didn't comprehend what I wrote. Im saying that the school quite possibly had professionals on hand who know what they are doing.

If they did, they would not have made such a horrible judgment.

If a trained professional actually made a misjudgment of that caliber, then they deserve to at least have their competence questioned. Autism is not a disease that is hard to diagnose or lends itself to lots of odd borderline cases (mild autism and asbergers are both something very different).

 

[Soapy Sam]

Boo- did you read "unstrange Minds" by R.R.Grinker?
I'm half way through it.
Odd book and not really what I expected. (Not sure what I expected, to be honest).
One comment he makes is that diagnosis of autism (as well as a range of behavioural problems) tends to be more consistent when done by researchers than when made by clinicians, the reason being that researchers try to adhere to shared definitions, whereas clinicians often "doctor" a diagnosis to get the best political result for the patient where the politics of medicine stream patients differently depending on diagnosis.(eg if a kid diagnosed autistic gets better treatment in an area than one diagnosed "retarded", then that tends to be the diagnosis of choice though it might be the reverse elsewhere ).
It's intriguing to see how the socio-political situation vis-a-vis healthcare can have huge effect, whether in Washington, the big Dineh Reservation, Korea, France or Africa.

I doubt anything in the book will be news to you, but it's interesting for those on the periphery.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Can we go ahead and dismiss Michael "Savage" as an ill-mannered brat and be done with it?

If you haven't already, then you probably should. I would also mention that besides being a nitwit, he is also a homeopath with his wife, and has published far more books on that topic than any other.

Anyone read Savage's book on homeopathy? I'm assuming it was pro-homeopathy, but haven't read the book myself.

You are correct.

If we define a "syndrome" by behavioural criteria alone we have a complexity problem. There are too many variables in behaviour. So we need objective tests- and it would be great if we could run a quck tricorder scan to tell whether a child's reading problem is due to slower than average neural development or because he just doesn't like reading- but we can't. (And even then we might legitimately ask- if his brain growth is "normal" for his age - WHY doesn't he like reading? Is that also a feature of his neural development? )

The thing is, there are fairly objective tests that can be performed. On our peds unit conclusions about autism, or any mental illness for that matter are not taken lightly. It's not like the parents who bring the children in aren't also being some what scrutinized via the patients social history.

Generally in my experience, the staff I encounter tend to be skeptical of all anecdotal reports until they can make their own assessments, which, for those that are worried that misdiagnosis may occur, is a good thing.